This past weekend I began a persuasion seminar with 14 smart and interesting people in Charleston, WV for a WVU Corporate Communication program. During our discussion of CLARCCS cues, one participant, John, shared an interesting observation he’d made on a shopping trip that, at the time, didn’t seem quite that meaningful, but upon learning about the cues, he realized he’d discovered a very powerful persuasion tactic.

See, John was shopping for a new computer at one of those large office and equipment chain stores. During checkout, the sales clerk left John alone and while John was waiting, he noticed a small printed sign taped to the cash register that had several typed lines of instruction in sequence. Being curious and left alone, John read the page. In essence, the sign describe a team approach to persuading customers.

When a customer entered the store, Employee1 would make a friendly greeting and unless there was an immediate request, the Employee1 would walk away. Shortly thereafter, Employee2 was directed to contact the customer and point out current sales and again unless there was an immediate request, Employee2 would then walk away. Employee3 would then enter the scene with a “how may I help you?” approach. Employee3 would then work with the customer to connect her or him to the needed product or service and then direct the customer to Employee4 who would complete the transaction at the register.

Now, the pattern of Employee behavior looks like normal business behavior. The novel, interesting, and useful persuasion tactic, however, comes from the deliberate sequencing of steps through different employees. By assigning different specific communication tasks to each role in this play, the business makes it more likely that each customer will “get” all the information the business wants out there. Furthermore, by distributing each message across multiple sources, it becomes less likely that the customer will feel like a persuasion target and more like someone shopping in a store with a lot of helpful agents.

This team persuasion tactic is a brilliant application of the principles of persuasion. It provides a formal and ongoing structure for the business to deliver persuasion (that typed sign on the register). It hides the persuasion attempt across multiple sources. It has got to be great for team morale as each person on the team will play different parts in the scene. You can imagine the signaling they invent and use, just like a baseball coach on third base giving signs. And, I’ve got to believe that team persuasion goes right to the bottom line with increased sales and customer satisfaction with the greatest benefit of all: No one even knows it’s happening. An excellent application of the Rules.

Can Hollywood change the world? Really. I’m not talking about fashion, style, or trend, but real serious behavior change. Can a movie motivate action? More accurately, can movie producers use movies to motivate action? Let’s consider a recent example.

“Syriana,” the movie, released in 2005 is an excellent Hollywood example to analyze for our question. The plot addresses an issue of continuing political concern, the global politics of oil, and presents an analysis of the problem. “Syriana” determines that unscruplous oilmen, sleazy influence-peddlers, and high level CIA administrators combine to squeeze every drop of oil from Middle East countries while simultaneously seducing Arab princes into a lifestyle of excess to the detriment of the liberalization of their helpless, good-hearted people. These evil American forces prevent Middle Eastern countries from achieving liberal democracy through their greed and ambition. Finally, “Syriana” urges that these evil American forces of greed and ambition cause acts of international terrorism through the recruitment of desperate Muslims trapped in poverty.

Regardless of the creative merits of the movie (see the Internet Movie Data Base or the Movie Review Query Engine for reviews) I want to take its persuasion concepts seriously. The movie clearly identifies the structural factors that drive this enormously important political issue. The three primary factors are oil companies, lobbyists, and CIA administrators and operatives. Syriana argues through movie techniques (rather than Madison Avenue ads or New Yorker profiles, etc.) that if good people would control the actions of these three players, the world would be a better place.

Let’s take the movie at face value and accept the argument. The Three Evil Actors are the main cause of Arab Muslim oppression and distress, significantly and actively retard the deeply desired development of liberal democracy in the Middle East, and serve to pervert the American political system. Now, let’s march on the castle with burning torches and Change Things For The Better “Syriana.”

How we do this must be pretty obvious because the movie itself provides strange guidance on the action step. “We’ve identified the cause, so the solution is easy; just get rid of the causal forces.” Hey, just fire those bad guys at the CIA. Do something about those greedy oilmen. Oh, and ban all lobbyists. And how do you do this?

If you visit the “Syriana” website you will find a link to an action website. Here they boldly offer a series of steps anyone can take to change the world for better.

Hmmm, let’s see . . . how do we reign in that out of control CIA? How about a “Virtual March” on Washington, DC? You and the producers of “Syriana” will rid the CIA of evildoers through email!

Hmmm, let’s see . . . how do we end our addiction to oil (which will hurt the sleazy oilmen in the wallet)? Just download this spiffy PDF which contains fabulous Action Steps you can take all by yourself with no help from “Syriana.” Consider these dazzlingly actions: Weatherize your house! Share car rides! Combine several short car trips into one longer trip! Use energy efficient appliances!

Can “Syriana” be any more lazy and irresponsible? Share a ride. Put weather strips around your windows. This is going to seriously address the serious problem “Syriana” observes?

Let’s do some math on this to evaluate movie’s commitment to influence with responsibility. If you Google around for movie financial information you’ll find it cost about $50 million to create the movie (production and marketing costs). To date (January 1, 2007)”Syriana” has grossed just under $100 million. The movie received awards. It got lots of buzz in the big media sources for its intellectual content. It’s obvious they made some money on this one. And if they spent more than $1,000 putting up their Participate website, I should open a business providing useless, but attractive websites to Hollywood unElectables.

So, the producers pony up $50 million to change the world about oil. That’s a pretty serious number. Except they got all of that back, plus some extra. They will keep that extra amount. Except for the $1,000 they spent on the Participate website with all that groovy information about weatherizing, car pooling, and energy efficient appliances. And that website will help “Syriana” change the world.

What’s even more amazing about this is that it appears that everyone involved is serious about this. I watched a PBS episode (12/21/05) of “Charlie Rose” with several movie critics discussing “Syriana” as if it were a piece of serious political rhetoric. Read some of the comments “Syriana” viewers offer on the Participate.net website. They believe what they are saying. They are sincere.

When you stop and think about what this movie claims, you realize how lazy these influence agents are. They believe that they can use a popular entertainment to drive people to a website that recycles ideas that have been around since the year after Henry Ford invented the Model T and that this will influence large number of people to modify their own energy use and cause significant change to the operation of a government agency.

Using these influence tactics even George Clooney couldn’t get elected to the school board although they did help him and his investors earn a profit of $50 million for his creative efforts.

Now, of course, it is possible that Clooney et al. are operating on a different persuasion target. Instead of using “Syriana” to change the world, they were using “Syriana” to make people believe they were trying to change the world in the hopes that this perception would generate more sales. Hmmmm.

All bad persuasion is sincere.

The action website reeks of sincerity. Everyone wears their hearts on their sleeves and now a year after the release of the movie and the action website, it is obvious that it had no impact on oil policy or prices or the CIA or Middle Eastern princes and pirates.

One of the Rules is: Persuaders can be famous or effective, but not both.

To the extent that Clooney et al. are famous as persuaders, they are ineffective at behavior change (that lame website). To the extent that Clooney et al. are effective as persuaders, they would be infamous for getting rich in such a way.

For some people central route persuasion may seem to be a more honorable and honest approach to persuasion. You seek motivated receivers who want the best information before they reach a choice. You provide the strongest arguments for your case and let your opponents offer their arguments. Let the best side win.

Well, it may be more honorable, but it is not necessarily the most effective approach to persuasion. You don’t have to be a football fan to understand this when you consider an example from the National Football League.

This year the NFL conjured up a new way to make money. The owners held back a handful of late season games from the standard TV contract and created a new “NFL Network” that carries these eight Thanksgiving to Christmas games played on Thursdays and Saturdays. It’s a smart marketing move. During this time period college football is not active because the regular season is complete and most of the bowl games don’t start until Christmas. So, football junkies are down a pint for this month. Into the void steps the NFL Network with eight games to be available during the typical times when college games would air.

From a persuasion perspective I’d call this a scarcity move (when it is rare, it is good). Typically employed as a peripheral route strategy, scarcity operates on a low WATT processor who feels the pressure of the rare thing (like those home shopping channels that make a product available “only in this hour”) and without carefully looking at the merits of the thing makes a purchase. In this instance, I do not think that the NFL is using scarcity as a peripheral route tactic. Instead, the NFL is deliberately creating a scare item (football games available during a period when they are not usually available), and using that scarcity as an argument to support the consumer purchase of the product. The reasoning goes like this – “I’m a football fan and I love watching football on TV. From Thanksgiving to Christmas there is less football on TV. The NFL Network is now offering games during the dry spell. Yippee!!!” This is not a peripheral process. This is central route. The scarcity of the product is truly an argument that bears on the central merits of the purchase. In fact, this is just a nice illustration of economics and the relationship between supply and demand. When this is true, it is killer central route persuasion and the source is in line for a major gain.

So, this sounds like smart business . . . except, virtually no one is able to see the games.

See, since these games are outside of the standard TV contract, no one is contractually obligated to carry the games. Producers like NBC, ESPN, Fox, and CBS and cable operators like Time-Warner, Comcast, etc. agreed to deliver all NFL games – except these eight – as part of the contract. It looks like the NFL wanted more money for these eight games, but the usual gang of suspects didn’t want to pay the premium, so they declined the offer. The NFL is stuck with having these eight games, but can’t get them out to the public. Now, the NFL Network is trying to manipulate public opinion into pressuring these groups to deliver the NFL Network games at rates the producers and operators don’t like.

If you visit the NFL website they promeniently feature their concerns about the evil cable operators. They offer highly edited quotes that appear to offer some sympathy to the NFL and provide various strategies that outraged NFL fans can pursue to register discontent with cable operators. And if you are a real sports fan, you can see people like Tony Kornheiser make snide comments about the failure of his cable operator to offer these games on his ESPN cable sports show, “Pardon the Interruption.” The fact that Tony is a football analyst for ESPN and therefore paid by the NFL is not disclosed.

If you take the central route, you are thinking that you can make your case on the merits. You believe that your arguments are the best arguments and will lead to more favorable elaboration activity in your receivers. It is straight-up, head-on, me-against-you, let-the-best-one-win persuasion. You don’t need to play any persuasion games that exemplify the peripheral route – no CLARCCS cues – just straight out logos, classic Aristotle, and the best arguments for rational minds.

The persuasion problem for the NFL here is that their arguments are not clean, simple, and fundamental. They wanted more money for these eight games and in a fair marketplace, they couldn’t get any takers for their offer. The NFL is now trying to mobilize their fan base to attack the cable operators and get the operators to take an offer they’ve already refused. As long as the fan base does not realize this, the NFL might succeed in this persuasion strategy. However, we are now in the seventh week of the scarce resource and the cable operators have not changed their minds. It looks like the NFL brought a knife to a gun fight. We’ll see confirmation of this if the NFL Network disappears after this year.

Remember the Rules: Great persuaders don’t need rich uncles, kindness from strangers, or third party vote splitters.

If you follow the NBA you know that the league is using a new basketball this season. David Stern, the commissioner of the league, made this decision as part of a marketing agreement with a basketball manufacturer, Spaulding. A new brand of ball will probably sell like hotcakes because who wants to play streetball with the “old” one when there’s a “new” one, right? You’d also assume that this marketing agreement brings benefits to the players as part of the overall profit sharing that goes on between the owners and the players. So, everyone is happy.

Except everyone isn’t happy. The players have been complaining all season about this lousy new ball. Early predictions were uniformly negative. Most people expected scoring to go down and turnovers to go up because the damn ball is no damn good.

Except a couple of months into the season, “. . . statistically there has been an improvement in shooting, scoring, and ball-related turnovers . . .” according to Commissioner Stern. Yet because the players remain unhappy about having this new ball forced upon them, the league is going back to the “old” ball.

What’s going on here? Listen to a player for a clue.

“For the league to be successful, obviously the players have to be happy. The basketball is the most important thing to us,” said LeBron James, one of several NBA All-Stars who criticized the new ball. “Like I said before, you can change the dress code, you can make our shorts shorter, but when you take our basketball away from us, that’s not a transition we handle.”

“. . . but when you take our basketball away from us . . .” Bingo! That sounds like players perceived an unfair restriction upon their behavior and responded with classic reactance. While this situation is clearly not a carefully controlled experiment, the combination of player resistance and statistics of better oncourt performance with the new ball leads me to see this as an entirely preventable circumstance. On a rational basis, the new ball functions at least as well if not better than the old ball on key criteria like scoring and turnovers. But players are still upset, so something else is going on.

Whatever Mr. Stern did during the development of the new ball and its use in the league, he clearly did not communicate with the players enough to make them believe they were truly consulted.

I do not believe for one minute that Mr. Stern arbitarily and autocratically jammed this new policy on the players. I’m sure that many of them knew about the coming change and participated in its development. However, their participation in their eyes at least was not sufficient to preclude that sense of unfair restriction.

This leads us to the art of persuasion. Even if you don’t know the term, “reactance,” you still realize that people will get ornery if they think you’re messing with their freedom. How do you get the new ball in play without starting a revolution? It would be interesting to know whether Mr. Stern received any formal public committment for the new ball from any players prior to implementing the new policy. My guess is that he did not. (Or if he did those players were perceived as willing confederates to the commissioner and hence were not perceived as “real” representatives.) When people participate in the planning of activities that affect their perceived freedom, they tend to accept restrictions as fair.

Of course, this tactic requires that you know how to manage the participation in a way that leads you to where you want to go rather than in some other direction. But, that’s a persuasion problem for another post.